National Security And Ex-Im

In the course of its mission to support American exports, the U.S. Export-Import Bank also supports American economic diplomacy and national security. Read below to see what national security, foreign policy, and diplomatic experts say about the critical mission of the Ex-Im Bank.

Hugh Hewitt, Author And Conservative Radio Show Host, and Dan Renberg, Conservative and Former Ex-Im Board Member

• Ending Ex-Im Is “Literally Shooting Ourselves In The Foot As A Nation In Terms Of Global Trade Competitiveness.”“Yeah, well, the down side is that we would be literally shooting ourselves in the foot as a nation in terms of our global trade competitiveness. Every industrialized nation has an official export credit agency, or ECA. That’s what the U.S. Ex-Im Bank is, and we were one of the first, if not the first, one of the first. All of our competitors that are in major industrialized nations have them. And then developing nations have also gotten their own ECA’s. In fact, we’re being outslugged by the Koreans. I just want to, I found a statistic that just fascinates me. The Korean Export Credit Agency, they used, they gave $2 billion dollars more than Ex-Im Bank in terms of supported exports last year, $2 billion more, even though their economy is one-tenth the size of the U.S.” (Hugh Hewitt and Dan Renberg, “Yes To Reauthorizing The Export-Import https://exportersforexim.org/files/bank,” Hugh Hewitt, 4/27/15)

John Bolton, Former Ambassador to the United Nations

• Ex-Im Must Be Renewed Because It Is An “Arm Of U.S. National-Security Policy.” “Bluntly stated, the Ex-Im Bank is, therefore, also a political weapon. Whether in sales of big-ticket items that have military as well as civilian applications (such as airplanes and high-tech components), or in American exports into particularly sensitive countries and regions (such as Latin America, where China is vigorously expanding its ‘commercial’ presence), the Ex-Im Bank has been an arm of U.S. national-security policy.” (John Bolton, “A Reaganesque solution to the Ex-Im Bank dilemma,” Washington Times, 5/26/15)

Twelve Former U.S. Officials Including Former U.S. Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright and Former U.S. Secretary Of Defense William Cohen

• Twelve Former Top National Security Officials Say Ending Ex-Im Is Unilateral Disarmament.“The letter said China was expanding its reach in Africa, particularly through long-term infrastructure projects, and Ex-Im was a valuable tool to counter competitors. ‘Unilateral disarmament has never been considered a viable defense policy, and we cannot think of a reason why it should be considered a rational export policy,’ the letter said.” (Krista Hughes, “Former Top U.S. Officials Urge Lifeline For Export Credit Agency,” Reuters, 2/12/15)

• Twelve Top Former U.S. Officials: It Would Be “Inconceivable” To Dismantle Ex-Im In The Current National Security Climate. “Indeed, many global customers require access to export credit agency funding as a prerequisite to submit a proposal. Without access to the Ex-Im Bank, US manufacturers could lose deals before they even begin to assemble their bids. To us, it is inconceivable that some in Congress could contemplate dismantling the Ex-Im Bank while the dynamics of global trade remain as they are. Unilateral disarmament has never been considered a viable defense policy, and we cannot think of a reason why it should be considered a rational export policy.” (Letter To Congressional Leadership, 2/11/15)

General Petraeus and Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon

• Ex-Im Supports Industries “Integral To Our Country’s Security Interests.” “The total value of exports in 2013 linked to such loans was $37 billion, with nearly $12 billion for smaller businesses. Whether or not all these prospective exports and jobs would have dried up without the bank, there is little doubt that it has helped considerably with American employment as well as our national balance of payments. Because economic strength and manufacturing as well as scientific prowess are among the foundations of national power, we see these attributes as integral to our country’s security interests as well.” (David Petraeus and Michael O’Hanlon, “Petraeus and O’Hanlon: Export-Import https://exportersforexim.org/files/bank an easy call,” USA Today, 9/5/14)

General James L. Jones, Former National Security Advisor and Supreme Allied Commander Europe

• Those Against Ex-Im Reauthorization “Base Their Arguments On A World That Doesn’t Exist.”“Many opponents of reauthorization base their arguments on a world that doesn’t exist, where markets are untrammeled by state-supported export finance. The reality is that throughout the world approximately 60 export credit agencies are jockeying to offer enticing financing terms with a view to winning more and more sales for the companies domiciled in their respective nations, often at our expense. China, Europe, Russia and even Canada have expanded their state-backed export support even as Congress continues to deliberate on the future of Ex-Im. One of China’s multiple export credit arms has authorized more financing in the last two years than Ex-Im has since its founding eight decades ago.” (General James Jones, “Keep The Export-Import Bank: Column,” USA Today, 5/19/15)

• Export Credit Assistance “Anchors A Critical Component Of America’s Competitiveness Toolkit.” “Fact: America must fiercely compete for these markets with other countries for sales, for investments, and to develop supply chains. Fact: Export credit – the kind provided by the Ex-Im Bank – anchors a critical component of America’s competitiveness toolkit. Since its founding during America’s effort to emerge from the Great Depression, the Ex-Im bank has supported American jobs by financing our exports when competitive, affordable rates are not commercially available or when U.S. companies face competition in foreign markets from foreign state-backed competitors provided financing by their governments. Ex-Im levels the playing field for American businesses so they can compete in foreign markets against foreign competitors.” (General JamesJones, Testimony Before The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee On Terrorism, Nonproliferation And Trade, 5/19/15)

George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom

• Reagan Would Not Have Supported “Economic Unilateral Disarmament” By Ending Ex-Im. “And if we unilaterally abolish the Ex-Im Bank without having verifiable and enforceable free trade agreements, we are effectively engaging in unilateral economic disarmament. Just as unilateral nuclear disarmament is naive and dangerous, unilateral economic disarmament will impose real economic costs on America. Perhaps, this is why President Ronald Reagan backed reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. No one can question Reagan’s conservative credentials or his commitment to free markets. But Reagan also understood that we cannot engage in economic unilateral disarmament.” (George Landrith, “Unilateral Disarmament is Dangerous — in Both a National Security Context and as Economic Policy,” Townhall, 5/18/15)

Susan Rice, National Security Advisor

• Ex-Im “Essential” To Reaching Emerging Markets And “An Important Part Of Our Diplomacy.” “That’s why the Export-Import https://exportersforexim.org/files/bank of the united states is essential.  last year, financing from the bank helped thousands of american entrepreneurs reach new markets and grow their small businesses.  it supported 164,000 private sector american jobs.  and, it didn’t cost the american taxpayer a penny—ex-im returned $675 million to the treasury.  that’s the very definition of a win-win.  and, i can tell you, when president obama meets with foreign leaders, ex-im is an important part of our diplomacy.  so, i join the president, members of congress from both parties, the american chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, and small business owners across the country in calling on congress to reauthorize the ex-im bank with a long-term mandate to continue its vital work.” (Susan Rice, “Remarks at the Export-Import https://exportersforexim.org/files/bank’s annual conference,” 4/24/15)

Loren Thompson, Fellow, Lexington Institute

• Thompson Argues That Foreign Competitors Are Subsidizing Their Businesses, Unlike The Ex-Im Bank. “Ex-Im programs don’t cost taxpayers a cent, because any loans have to be paid back with interest. In fact, Ex-Im gave the Treasury a billion dollars in excess fees last year that it had collected and didn’t need to sustain ongoing operations. Trade subsidies, meaning government giveaways to support exports, are a real problem — France subsidizes Airbus, China subsidizes Huawei. But Ex-Im doesn’t subsidize anybody.” (Loren Thompson, “Heritage Attack On Ex-Im Bank Reflects Ignorance Of Critics,” Lexington Institute, 6/5/14)

• Ending Ex-Im Leaves The U.S. “Weaker, Not Stronger.” “Winston Churchill famously said ‘I would not sacrifice my own generation to a principle — however high — or a truth however great.’  Apparently today’s GOP back-benchers do not agree since abolishing Ex-Im Bank would hit a lot of ”red states” hard.  More companies in Texas tap Ex-Im credit programs to finance their exports than in any other state; if those programs go away, so will thousands of jobs in the Lone Star state.  And why precisely is this necessary?  Will it save taxpayers money, or reduce the deficit, or promote free trade?  The answer is “none of the above.”  All it will accomplish is to score ideological points while doing nothing to address pressing issues such as the growth of the welfare state or the decline in U.S. global competitiveness.  Without Ex-Im Bank, America will be weaker, not stronger.” (Loren Thompson, “Five Ways Killing Ex-Im Bank Would Really Hurt America,” Forbes, 4/13/15)

Frank Gaffney Jr., The Center For Security Policy

• The Ex-Im Bank Is One Of Few Options To Bolster National Defense. “One of the few options available to help mitigate the cumulative effects of these factors in hollowing out our defense industries has been through exports.  Financing of some such sales – particularly in the commercial aerospace sector – has been guaranteed through the U.S. Export-Import https://exportersforexim.org/files/bank (ex-im).” (Frank Gaffney, Jr., “Who’s For Dismantling The Defense Industrial Base?,” The Center For Security Policy, 7/8/13)

Marion Blakey, Aerospace Industries Associations

• “Ex-Im Contributes Significantly To The Strength Of Our Nation’s Industrial Manufacturing Base.” “The Bank ensures that the suppliers for manufacturers of aircraft, helicopters, commercial satellites, spacecraft and launch vehicles are able to participate in an ever-expanding global marketplace. And if you add to original equipment sales the significant orders for aftermarket parts and components generated by U.S. aerospace exports, it is clear that Ex-Im contributes significantly to the strength of our nation’s industrial manufacturing base and to our industry’s track record of generating the largest trade surplus of any manufacturing sector.” (Marion Blakey, “Opinion: Reagan Would Have Fought For Ex-Im https://exportersforexim.org/files/bank,” Aviation Week, 6/17/14)

The Nuclear Energy Institute

• The Ex-Im Bank Is A “Tender Requirement” For All Foreign Nuclear Projects. “Without Ex-Im Bank, U.S. exports to the large and growing global market for nuclear energy would plummet. Export credit agency support is almost always a tender requirement for bidding on foreign nuclear power plant projects. Without Ex-Im Bank, the competitiveness of U.S. commercial nuclear suppliers would be impaired.” (NEI Staff, ” Ex-Im Bank Reauthorization: Myths and Facts,” Nuclear Energy Institute)

• Foreign Competitors Have National Nuclear Support For Deals. “Leading nuclear energy supplier nations such as Russia, the Republic of Korea, Japan and France provide their national nuclear energy suppliers with multiple forms of support, including strong trade finance.”(NEI Staff, “Ex-Im Bank Reauthorization: Myths and Facts,” Nuclear Energy Institute)

The Bipartisan Policy Center

• “U.S. Commercial Strength In [Nuclear Exports] Provides Substantial Cobenefits In Terms Of National Security”. “Continued leadership in the development of advanced nuclear technologies presents an important export opportunity for the U.S. nuclear industry and for our nation’s economy. The Commerce Department estimates that the international market for nuclear equipment and services will grow to $500–$740 billion over the next ten years. Perhaps more importantly, as previously discussed, U.S. commercial strength in this area provides substantial cobenefits in terms of national security.” (Senator Pete V. Domenici and Dr. Warren F. “Pete” Miller, Co-Chairs, “Maintaining U.S. Leadership In Global Nuclear Energy Markets,” Bipartisan Policy Center’s Nuclear Initiative, 09/12)